United States: Supreme Court Holds That CERCLA Preemption Is Inapplicable To Statutes Of Repose

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), preempts statutes of limitations applicable to state-law tort actions for personal injury or property damage in certain circumstances. §9658 of CERCLA applies to statutes of limitations governing actions for personal injury or property damage arising from the release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant into the environment. The preemption creates a discovery rule to be used in determining the accrual date of any state cause of action arising from the release of contamination where state law does not provide a discovery rule. §9658 was adopted out of a Congressional concern for diseases or harms with long latency periods.

CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, decided June 9, 2014, addresses whether §9658 likewise preempts statutes of repose. CTS Corporation and a subsidiary operated an electronics plant in Asheville, North Carolina from 1959 to 1985. Trichloroethylene (TCE) and cis-1, 2-dichloroethane (DCE) were used on site. In 1987, CTS sold the property. The buyer eventually sold portions of the property to individuals who, along with adjacent landowners, brought suit alleging damage from contaminants released on the land.

North Carolina has a 10-year statute of repose barring all claims brought more than 10 years after the last act or omission of the defendant, and also a statute of limitations with a discovery rule. If the statute of repose is not preempted, all claims against CTS Corp. are barred as a matter of law, despite the fact that no one knew or should have known of the exposure and injuries during that 10-year period. The claim may be barred by the statute of repose before any claim accrues for injuries that might not appear and be discovered for many more years after the last act of the defendant.

Procedurally, the District Court found that the statute of repose applied, was not affected by CERCLA's discovery rule (or by the state statute of limitation and its discovery rule) and barred all claims. The Fourth Circuit reversed, finding that §9658 preempted the statute of repose to the extent that it denied relief in the form of claims otherwise preserved by the discovery rule. The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, decided that §9658 does not preempt statutes of repose. Therefore CTS Corp. has no liability in the underlying lawsuit.

The Court first reasoned that there are relevant differences between statutes of limitations and statutes of repose. A statute of limitations focuses on the injury and the knowledge of the plaintiff. It cuts off suits for damages on claims that have accrued after the injured party has knowledge and the opportunity to bring the accrued claim A statute of repose focuses on the date of culpable act or omissions of the defendant, and the desire to limit access to the courts after a defined period has expired. It protects defendants from their liability and the courts from resource commitments to manage cases which time may have made difficult to adjudicate fairly.

The Supreme Court observed that the preemption CERCLA provides for is effectively a form of tolling, a concept inconsistent with a statute of repose citing Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U. S. 350, 363 (1991) ("[A] period of repose [is] inconsistent with tolling"). The CERCLA provision at issue in the case is essentially mandatory federal tolling applied to the minority of states which do not allow such tolling by statute or common law.

The Supreme Court then turned to the question of Congressional Intent. It rejected an expansive construction doctrine favoring pre-emption of repose statutes as applied to claims under this remedial legislation, observing:

The Court of Appeals supported its interpretation of §9658 by invoking the proposition that remedial statutes should be interpreted in a liberal manner. The Court of Appeals was in error when it treated this as a substitute for a conclusion grounded in the statute's text and structure. After all, almost every statute might be described as remedial in the sense that all statutes are designed to remedy some problem. And even if the Court identified some subset of statutes as especially remedial, the Court has emphasized that "no legislation pursues its purposes at all costs." Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U. S. 522, 525– 526 (1987) (per curiam). Congressional intent is discerned primarily from the statutory text. In any event, were the Court to adopt a presumption to help resolve ambiguity, substantial support also exists for the proposition that "the States' coordinate role in government counsels against reading" federal laws such as §9658 "to restrict the States' sovereign capacity to regulate" in areas of traditional state concern. FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., 568 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 18).

There was a question, a large focus at oral argument, concerning whether the difference between a statute of limitations and a statute of repose was understood by Congress (or the legal community in question) when they passed the preemption provision at issue:

From all this, it is apparent that general usage of the legal terms has not always been precise, but the concept that statutes of repose and statutes of limitations are distinct was well enough established to be reflected in the 1982 Study Group Report, commissioned by Congress under section 301(e) of CERCLA. In one of its recommendations, the Study Group Report called on States to adopt the discovery rule now embodied in §9658. Study Group Report, pt. 1, at 256. The Report identified statutes of repose as distinct and different from statutes of limitation, and made a recommendation to pre-empt them, in effect eliminating statutes of repose. The Report to Congress stated "The Recommendation is intended also to cover the repeal of the statutes of repose which, in a number of states[,] have the same effect as some statutes of limitation in barring [a] plaintiff's claim before he knows that he has one." Ibid. The scholars and professionals who were discussing this matter (and indeed were advising Congress) knew of a clear distinction between the two. The Report clearly urged the repeal of statutes of repose as well as statutes of limitations. But in so doing the Report did what the statute does not: It referred to statutes of repose as a distinct category. And when Congress did not make the same distinction, it is proper to conclude that Congress did not exercise the full scope of its preemption power."

There is a Section D of the main opinion, not joined by all seven of the justices who concur in result, suggesting that there should be a presumption against preemption, in effect requiring a greater degree of explicit statutory language to achieve preemption even where the ordinary meaning of the statute and its purposes suggest an intent to preempt State law. In a concurrence authored by Justice Scalia, and joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Alito, they concluded that ordinary concepts of statutory construction should be used in construing preemption clauses, with no presumption of narrowness applied.

The dissent argues that the majority is misconstruing §9658, and that a plain meaning approach suggests that the last act of a defendant triggering a statute of repose should be treated as preempted by the "Federally required commencement date" containing a discovery rule. Justice Ginsburg, who authored the dissent, suggests no reason (other than the remedial purpose of the statute itself) why a statute of repose should be treated as identical to a statute of limitations or why a statute of repose, absent a clear expression of Congressional intent, would ever be subject to pre-emptive tolling other than to prevent facilities from concealing contamination to take advantage of statutes of repose, which are reported to be quite rare in the area of environmental claims.

The decision comes as a bit of a surprise. It is a 7-2 decision, with Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan voting with the majority. The decision seems contrary to the tone and tenor of the oral argument, which can be found at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-339_ah69.pdf.

Interestingly, the Obama Administration filed a brief supporting the "no preemption" argument.

The decision clearly finds that Congress has the power to preempt statutes of repose should it choose to do so in the future. In the current climate, it seems unlikely that Congress would have the will to do so. Readers should consider this opinion in light of its limited application (there are few states with statutes of repose applicable to environmental damage and property damage claims), and also in light of the federal government's position supporting reversal on the pre-emption of the statute. The federal government has a Marine Corps base in North Carolina at Camp Lejeune. Claims are being raised by people who allege exposure to chlorinated compounds released at that camp. The contamination was recently discovered, many years after the last reported use of the compounds at the base. Preservation of the North Carolina statute of repose at issue here may provide a defense to any such claims against the government, without affecting most applications of §9658 in states which do not have statutes of repose but do have statutes of limitation. The United States has already notified the 11th Circuit of the Waldburger decision in the Bryant case, where the government is appealing a district court order pre-empting the same statute of repose under CERCLA §9658 in a Camp Lejeune claim. The opinion in this case also did not mention the fact that Congress considered and rejected creating federal tort claims for personal injury or property damages resulting from contamination when it enacted CERCLA in 1980. That action suggests that Congress may have less interest in ensuring such claims under State law than the dissent finds.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions